Everyday Champions Church set to be latest in line of faith-based founders

An evangelical church, which intends to teach creationism as part of its science curriculum, has submitted a proposal to open a free school in Nottinghamshire.

The Everyday Champions Church in Newark handed its plans to open a 625-pupil secondary school in the area to the Department for Education last week.

The application came just a day before the DfE held its first free school conference, where education secretary Michael Gove said applications from creationist groups would be considered, with each judged on its individual merits.

According to the church, the Everyday Champions Academy will possess a "Christian ethos that permeates everything that happens throughout the school".

The church states that it believes the Bible is an "accurate" depiction of God's word, and that God is the "creator of all things".

Pastor Gareth Morgan, the church leader and the driving force behind the free school bid, confirmed that creationism would be taught across the curriculum, should the school be given the green light.

"Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school," Pastor Morgan said. "It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory."

The church website carries a video that states: "If creation is true, there is a purpose to life. If evolution is true, there is no purpose to life." It adds that "if creation is true, then man is a fallen creature and we need a saviour. If evolution is true then man is an evolving creature and we don't need any saviour".

It is hoped that the school will open its gates in a new building by September 2012, offering places to both Year 7 and Year 8 pupils.

Earlier this month, the Everyday Champions Church held a community meeting where it laid out its vision for the school.

Pastor Morgan said that conversations with Newark and Sherwood District Council had shown that there would be a need for a 600-plus pupil secondary school in the area by 2015.

The National Secular Society urged Mr Gove to protect the science curriculum. Executive director Keith Porteous Wood said: "The secretary of state should emphasise that in regards to science, schools should teach the accepted theory of evolution and that any biblical teachings should be left to religious education.

"If creationism were taught in a science environment, there is a danger that it would be taught with the implication that it is the real explanation and that the scientific version was 'only a theory'," he added.

The academy is the latest in a line of proposed free schools with a faith-based ethos, such as the Tauheedul Islam Boys' High School, which has been proposed in Blackburn, and the Haringey Jewish Primary School in London.

According to the British Humanist Association (BHA), seven out of 10 free school applications have a faith-based ethos.

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips said schools such as the Everyday Champions Academy reaffirmed the association's concerns over free schools.

"This type of school holds up our fear from when Michael Gove first put forward his proposals - that they would be schools with faith-based and sometimes extreme views that would largely be applying to take over the running of our state-funded schools," Ms Phillips said.

"This is despite Michael Gove saying that the Government would protect against creationists and other extreme religions ... It's clear there are no such protections in place."

A spokesman for the Department for Education said it did not comment on free school applications.

DUE DILIGENCE - 'Hijack' worry

Michael Gove said the DfE has set up a due diligence committee to root out extremism in schools.

Speaking last week, he said: "It will be the responsibility of that committee to monitor all applications for new schools. And to monitor existing arrangements in existing schools to make sure there are no risks of extremism taking hold.

"We're going to ensure that we have the resource here to help local authorities and others to deal either with a small group of governors hijacking a school or a group who are promoting a school who are inappropriate, whether they be religious extremists or political extremists."

So why is anyone surprised at that then!!!! Didn't I say that would happen when the policy was first proposed on that unfortunate day last May. What the vast majority of parents want are GOOD local schools, so the only people who could be possibly interested in free schools would be either those with no access at all to decent schools or religious nutters. If Gove didn't really see that one coming he's a bigger idiot than I thought. And believe me that is not an easy feat to achieve given my opinion of him.

Roger Stanyard wrote:According to the British Humanist Association (BHA), seven out of 10 free school applications have a faith-based ethos.

Definitely and step in the right direction. This is parental choice at work.

No it isn't.

The church we are looking at in Newark is a private organisation that does not represent the interest of parents in that town. It's exclusive in that anyone who wants to join it has to go along with what it believes. I put it to you that it has not more than about 50 people amongst its regular congregation who have children of school age. It does represent the views of other religions or denominations or of the majority who are basically uninterested in religion.

It's a tiny group of fundamentalists trying to get hold of publicly funded assets and income to get converts to its cause.

It's little more than legalised theft and the vast majority of denizens of the town have no say in whether the government decides to back its application. We saw exactly the same thing with the Vardy schools.

If the church involved wants to get involved in education, there is nothing stopping it and its congregation setting up their own private school where they can push whatever fundamentalism they wish, at their own expense.

Roger Stanyard wrote:If the church involved wants to get involved in education, there is nothing stopping it and its congregation setting up their own private school where they can push whatever fundamentalism they wish, at their own expense.

Why should they have to pay twice for education, once to the state and then again to get the education that they want?

We should have a system where the tax money that parents pay is handed back to the parents to pay for the education that they want.

Marc_______________________________________________________"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton

Roger Stanyard wrote:If the church involved wants to get involved in education, there is nothing stopping it and its congregation setting up their own private school where they can push whatever fundamentalism they wish, at their own expense.

Why should they have to pay twice for education, once to the state and then again to get the education that they want?

We should have a system where the tax money that parents pay is handed back to the parents to pay for the education that they want.

That's completly off point. The same rules apply to us all - if we send our children to Eton, we still have to pay the same taxes as everyone else. You may wish to change that but I point out you enefit immensely from state funded education whether our not you were privately educated in your childhood.

I strongly doubt if you ever paid the full costs of your undergraduate or post graduet education and you walso run a business which is dependent on your customers having an education. You sell books!.

Who pays for the education of you doctor or nurses and surgeons that look after wyou and your family. Who pays for the fundamental research underlying your job in biochemistry? The entire shooting match in the UK is heavily dependent on publicly funded mass education. 93% of the population are/have wholly publicly funded education up until the age of 16-18 and a heck of a lot of the rest spend some time in state schools. Even in my town which has one to the top public schools in Britain, Winchester College) sees its state sixth form college filled with Wykhamists.

You're free to protest to the Tories/LidDems/Labourites about how terribly it is that you have to pay taxes for education your children didn't get from the state. But, I note, one of your sons seems quite happy to receive his income from the rest of us (you tell us he's in the RAF) and I haven't noticed that you're willing to repay, with interest, the funding you received from the state for your first degree and PhD.

Roger Stanyard wrote:If the church involved wants to get involved in education, there is nothing stopping it and its congregation setting up their own private school where they can push whatever fundamentalism they wish, at their own expense.

Why should they have to pay twice for education, once to the state and then again to get the education that they want?

/quote]

One other point - why should people who get a poor education or don't have any children pay the same tax rates as people who have benefited substantial or whose children have?

Marc wrote: We should have a system where the tax money that parents pay is handed back to the parents to pay for the education that they want

Wow you're a good tory boy aren't you. Think that one through why don't you. I wasn't a fan of the war in Iraq, perhaps you should pay me back the money I've spent funding the army and RAF and the weaponry that saves their lives so I could pay for something I'd like instead? Ok you take back your taxes from real schools to put into your bonkers ones but then promise to only rely on the drugs and technologies developed by the scientifically illiterate who come out of them. Perhaps they can read a few psalms over your cancer cells or call in the holy spirit to deal with your heart attack? Why not let the super rich opt out of paying taxes to an NHS they will never use while you're at it?

There is NO SCIENTIFIC controversy Marc, there is NO EVIDENCE for creationism. It is a lunatic religious belief held by liars and idiots, like the belief the holocaust never happened or the stork brings babies. It is not the job of the state to fund the weird beliefs, its job is to educate.

If there was evidence not only would we have heard of it but it would be taught in science. Give me one good reason why it wouldn't? No scientist would have to credit god if there was evidence for your flood would they-they could just see it as the origin of a myth. No scientisist would have to credit god if there was evidence that the earth was 6000 years old either would they. The old atheism/naturalism argument really doesn't hold water does it.

As for the education you want, there are faith schools many of which are christian and there is RE in secular schools. That is where your ideas belong and that is the place for them to be discussed. Are you perhaps worried that when put against other beliefs they might be found lacking?

Or you could just find some genuine evidence for your science and give it credibility in the real world and a place in the science classroom. Good luck though, folk have been looking rather a long time.

Roger wrote: One other point - why should people who get a poor education or don't have any children pay the same tax rates as people who have benefited substantial or whose children have?

Brilliant point. And why should folk without kids pay for the costs of maternity care and health visitors that those children incur? Or the subsidised nurseries? Because that is what civilised societies and decent people do?

Marc wrote: We should have a system where the tax money that parents pay is handed back to the parents to pay for the education that they want

Think that one through why don't you. I wasn't a fan of the war in Iraq, perhaps you should pay me back the money I've spent funding the army and RAF and the weaponry that saves their lives so I could pay for something I'd like instead?

This is somewhat off topic but ....I think we all agree that the tax system is unfair and we end up funding stuff that we don't like.

Let's imagine a true democracy were we could vote by putting our tax money towards the causes that we wish to support. Then the extent of government action on our behalf would be determined by the extent to which we think it is worth paying for.

The technology is surely available.. then if we wanted all our personal taxes to go into military funding or health care or education or if we wanted to opt out and use our money to provide our own education system or hospital we could do it. That would be true democracy...

Not very realistic I agree... but certainly an ideal that we could all buy into.

At the very least we should have a system where the government spending on education was divided up and handed out to parents (the "voucher system") to put into the schools of their choice. Then we would not have to worry about what was taught in the state education system because their would not be one. It would be the parents' education system.

Marc_______________________________________________________"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton

This is somewhat off topic but ....I think we all agree that the tax system is unfair and we end up funding stuff that we don't like.

Let's imagine a true democracy were we could vote by putting our tax money towards the causes that we wish to support. Then the extent of government action on our behalf would be determined by the extent to which we think it is worth paying for.

The technology is surely available.. then if we wanted all our personal taxes to go into military funding or health care or education or if we wanted to opt out and use our money to provide our own education system or hospital we could do it. That would be true democracy...

Not very realistic I agree... but certainly an ideal that we could all buy into.

We already have that Marc, they're called elections. You vote for the people you think will spend your taxes in the way you think fairest. And I don't agree that the tax system is unfair. I end up funding hospitals, schools, a safety net for the poor and many other things I think essential to a decent society. Your idea could never work anyway as people would bring their own prejudices and agendas into things and by and large people are fairly ignorant about issues. I may have been anti military funding for the Iraq war or before it, but pro fighting the taleban in Afghanistan, or Mugabe. Difficult to run wars along such minority lines. No banker would agree to paying for the poor or public services, racists wouldn't want to help immigrants or refugees, lots of people would favour the death penalty without thinking through the brutality of it. And people would preferentially demand finances funded issues closest to their hearts. Parents of toddlers would demand it go to nursery funding, I'd want it going to university fees etc, etc, etc. As for drug users, the mentally ill and the homeless-they'd get zilch really.

As for funding our own hospitals etc, surely that would result in excellent facillities in affluent areas and zero in the poorer ones?

True democracy does it's best to protect everyone rather than pander to the wishes of interest groups or large minorities. It's far from perfect but it is the best we can manage till somebody improves it.

Last edited by cathy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger Stanyard wrote:According to the British Humanist Association (BHA), seven out of 10 free school applications have a faith-based ethos.

Definitely and step in the right direction. This is parental choice at work.

Except that it has virtually nothing to do with the faith of parents and everything to do with the perception that faith-based schools provide a better education than their secular counter parts. Nor if I was in your position be that excited about the 'faith' in faith-based....

Everyday Champions church is pentecostal - I suspect they [pentecostals] will dominate creationist thinking in the UK soon if not already. Hopefully the project will die on its proverbial backside - particularly since the pastor clearly believes the bankrupt 'if evolution is true God doesn't exist' argument and also clearly doesn't understand what a 'theory' is in scientific terminology (and community involvement for some churches is rooted not in altruism, but in the harvest alone. Such churches also have a track record in grandiose plans, which sink without trace). While every denomination (& religion) has its skeletons in the cupboard, beyond the high-impact visuals of stereotypical smiley-happy, spirit-filled, pentecostals, Peter Green is apparently a member of a Pentecostal church...

Last edited by jon_12091 on Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'Miners against fascism.Hywel Francis